M.M. SUNDRESH, J.

1. The respondent herein is the auction purchaser in pursuant to the proceedings initiated under Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred as SARFAESI Act). Hence certificate issued in her favour was sought to be registered. After registration, a notice was issued under Section 47(A) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 to show cause as to why the market value fixed shall not be collected. Challenging the same, inter alia contending that auction being conducted publicly under SARFAESI Act, the appellants are bound to accept it, the writ petition was filed. The learned single Judge placing reliance upon the earlier orders passed by this Court pleased to allow the writ petition. Hence, the present appeal.

2. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants would submit that the learned Single Judge has not taken into consideration of the fact that the officer who conducted the sale under the SARFAESI Act is not akin to a Collector or Revenue Officer as mentioned in Article 18 of the Indian Stamp Act. In the same way, the proceedings initiated and concluded under SARFAESI Act cannot be equated with the public auction conducted by Civil or Revenue Court. In support of his contention reliance has been placed on the decision rendered by the learned Single Judge in Re, the Official Liquidator, High Court, Madras reported in 2010 (2) CTC 113.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/writ petitioner would submit that unless there is a reason to believe there is willful under valuation, proceedings under Section 47(A) of the Indian Stamp Act cannot be initiated. It is further submitted that inasmuch as auction was initiated under SARFAESI Act by an Authorised Officer who conducted auction, he should be considered as one coming under the Article 18 of the Indian Stamp Act.

4. The appeal deserves to be allowed on two grounds. Firstly, what is challenged is only a notice issued after a reference made by the Registering Authority under Section 47(A) of the Indian Stamp Act. Under the above said provision once such a reference is made, the Collector shall give notice to the parties giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Thereafter on a consideration of representation if any received in pursuant to the notice issued under Section 47(A) of the Act, an order is required to be passed by the Collector on perusal of the relevant records. Therefore, the writ petitioner instead of giving his representation and allowing an order to be passed under Section 47(A) of the Act and if aggrieved, challenging it before the forum provided under the Statute, ought not to have filed the writ petition. Hence, we are of the view that the writ petition so filed is not maintainable.

5. The decision of the Apex Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent in V.N. Devadoss v. Chief Revenue Control Officer-Cum-Inspector reported in (2009) 7 SCC 438, does not apply to the case on hand, in which applicability of Article, which has referred to above has not taken into consideration. Further, factual finding rendered therein was effected on the basis of the value fixed by Assets Sales Committee consisting of members such as representatives of IDBI, debenture-holders, Government of West Bengal and Special Director of BIFR. Therefore, the said judgment is distinguishable.

6. The other judgments relied upon by the learned Single Judge in our considered view cannot be accepted, as the scope and applicability of the Articles 18 and 23 of the Indian Stamp Act unfortunately was not brought before it. After all a judgment cannot be read like a statute and an issue, which has been decided without conscious consideration cannot be binding.

7. Since arguments have been made on the second issue, we also inclined to go into the same. What has to be considered by an authority under Stamp Act is fixation of the value of an instrument on the